Marlene McCallum v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2025 CanLII 116985

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17371/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act") from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Marlene McCallum

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Kailey Minnings Gurleen Thethi

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: No one appearing

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent

HEARD: By Teleconference Wednesday, September 3, 2025

OVERVIEW

1Marlene McCallum, (the "appellant"), appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles ("Registrar") to suspend their Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act") after the Registrar received a report from a treating healthcare provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their safety to drive.

ISSUES

2The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

3To answer that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely, hypoglycemia?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

4Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the issues in dispute have been resolved. There is no longer a suspension under Section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

PROCEDURAL ISSUE

5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

6The hearing began on September 3, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. The appellant, who is self-represented, did not appear and remained absent from the proceedings for the next 30 minutes. During this time, the Tribunal phoned the appellant and left a voicemail and sent the appellant an email. At 10:00 a.m., we proceeded with the hearing in the appellant's absence.

7Section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act ("SPPA"), states that, where notice of an electronic (e.g. by telephone or videoconference) hearing has been given to a party in a proceeding and the party does not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. Further, Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 ("Rules") states that if a party, who has been given notice of a hearing in accordance with the SPPA, does not attend their hearing within 30 minutes of the scheduled start time, the Tribunal may proceed with the hearing in the absence of that party and/or make any order it considers appropriate in the circumstances.

8The hearing was originally scheduled to take place on August 11, 2025. On August 7, 2025, the appellant submitted a Notice of Motion requesting an adjournment. On the hearing date, the appellant did not attend and submissions from the Registrar were heard. The hearing adjournment was granted and ordered to be on September 3, 2025, or September 4, 2025.

9An adjournment order was issued and sent to the appellant on August 14, 2025, advising of the above dates, and that a Notice of Rescheduled Hearing would be issued. A Notice of Rescheduled Hearing advising the parties that the hearing was rescheduled to September 3, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. was sent to the appellant on August 15, 2025. A hearing reminder was emailed to all parties on August 27, 2025.

10Shortly after the hearing began at 9:30 a.m., the Tribunal called the appellant and left a voicemail and sent the appellant an email reminding her of the hearing.

11The appellant did not attend, nor did the appellant provide any information as to why she was unable to attend.

12We find that the appellant received due notice of the hearing but failed to attend. We therefore relied on the discretion afforded by s. 7(3) of the SPPA and Rule 3.7.1 of the Rules and proceeded with the hearing at 10:00 a.m. in the appellant's absence.

ANALYSIS

13We heard submissions from the Registrar.

14The Registrar's representative submitted that the medical suspension had expired immediately, and since there was no longer a suspension under Section 47 (1) of the Act, that the appeal be dismissed.

15The Registrar relied on correspondence from the Ministry of Transportation dated August 27, 2025 which confirmed the same.

16The appellant did not attend the hearing, and thus did not testify or provide any additional information.

17We find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the correspondence confirms that the issues in dispute have been resolved.

ORDER

18As there is no longer a suspension under Section 47(1) of the Act, the parties have resolved the issues in dispute and the Tribunal's file is now closed.